District Court Judge Jackie Glass

District Court Judge Jackie Glass contradicted herself several times and even overruled herself without either the D.A. or my attorney asking her to do so. Twice Glass did a complete 180 in her rulings in a blatant attempt to help bolster the D.A.'s case against me. At first blush some of Glass' rulings appeared to lean in my favor. But ultimately every ruling Glass made favored the D.A. And helped him convict me. Judge Glass made 6 major issue rulings, all in favor of the D.A. All 6 of these are part of my appeal.

Judge Glass denied my right to a Frank's Hearing (Franks vs. Delaware), which kept me from challenging the search warrant. Before trial Glass had ruled that an expert would be required to verify the ages of the people in the video clips, but mid-trial she completely changed her mind and decided that no experts would be required. Any expert testifying at trial is required to provide the opposition with a report detailing what they will testify about. I provided the D.A. with a copy of my expert's report, but the D.A. did not provide me with a copy of his expert's report. This was a clear violation of Nevada law (NRS 174.234) but Judge Glass didn't care. She ruled that the D.A.'s expert could testify without providing a report. This was a clear violation of my due process and right to a fair trial.

Judge Glass first told A.D.A. Tom Carroll that sealed cases meant it's as if they never happened and no one's to talk about them. She later changed her mind (again) and ruled that she was allowing testimony from my sealed and expunged cases to take place at trial. This was a clear violation of Nevada laws (NRS 48.035, NRS 48.045) and Pennsylvania law (PA statute 35 P.S 780-119).

Judge Glass then refused to sever the pornography charges from the girls' accusations even though they weren't related, weren't based on the same act or transaction and weren't connected to or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. After trial Glass had ruled that there WAS jury misconduct but that I would not be getting a new trial.

Judge Glass made all of these rulings in favor of the D.A., in contradiction to the lawand with the purpose of misleading the jury, confusing the issues at trial and prejudicing the jury against me. If you're skeptical, then keep reading and/or order the trial transcripts and pre-trial motions and transcripts. It's all public record and available to anyone who wishes to order them. Here are the specifics of each issue I mentioned above.

Detective Rod Pena violated the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Nevada laws when he lied on the search warrant for my house and then seized and searched my cellphone without getting a search warrant for it. (click on Detective Pena's tab and/or the search warrant tab to read more about this.)

NRS 199.130 states:

A person who makes any false or fictitious affidavit before any person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of securing a warrant for the searching or premises is guilty of perjury which is a Category D felony.

NRS 199.440 states:

Whoever shall maliciously, and without probable cause, procure a search warrant to be issued and executed shall be deemed guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

NRS 199. 200 states:

Every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which he knows to be false.

I submitted a motion to suppress the search warrant for my house. Judge Glass denied it. My attorney informed her that I was entitled to a Frank's Hearing but Glass denied that too. She denied the Frank's Hearing because that would've exposed Detective Pena's violations and required him to try and explain them in court and under oath. Glass denied my motion to suppress the search warrant and my right to a Frank's Hearing in an attempt to cover up Detective Pena's violations. The search warrant should have been thrown out due to lack of probable cause and Detective Pena lying on the search warrant affidavit. If that happened, 12 out of 21 charges would have been dismissed and the D.A.'s case against me would have been weakened substantially. Glass was blatant in her attempts to help the D.A. at every turn.

Before trial A.D.A Tom Carroll knew his expert would testify that the ages of the people in the video clips could NOT be verified, which meant those charges should have been dismissed. Tom Carroll attempted to have the experts excluded from testimony. He went so far as to tell Judge Glass that he couldn't find his expert. He then asked Judge Glass that an expert NOT be required to verify the ages of the people in the video clips. Glass ruled that Carroll's expert would need to testify and that he should be able to explain the differences between a 16 and 17 year old or the charges would be dismissed. Tom Carroll's next ploy was not telling his expert to prepare a report explaining what he would be testifying about at trial. This is a clear violation of Nevada law.

NRS 174.234

The party that intends to call an expert witness shall file and serve upon the opposing party, not less than 21 days before trial, a copy of all reports made by the expert witness.

We followed the law and submitted our expert's report to the D.A. before trial but Tom Carroll did NOT do the same. Tom Carroll's expert testified at trial that Carroll did NOT ask him to prepare a report. Carroll knew that if we read his expert's report, admitting that there's now way to medically or scientifically determine the ages of the people in the video clips, all of those charges would have been dismissed. When Carroll chose to v with a report from his expert, his expert should not have been permitted to testify and all of those charges should have been dismissed. When Carroll chose to violate NRS 174.234 by NOT providing me. But Glass again chose to blatantly favor the D.A. and ignore Nevada law when she ruled that the D.A.'s expert could still testify. Then, just a few questions to the D.A.'s expert by my attorney, Glass stopped the trial and took all the attorneys into her chambers so the jury couldn't hear that she decided to overrule herself. Yes, overrule HERSELF! Neither the D.A. nor my attorney asked her to do this. Glass simply took it upon herself to rule that no experts would be required and that the jury could decide for themselves what the ages of the people in the video clips were. This is the equivalent of allowing a jury to compare fingerprints or DNA. It's ridiculous and the complete opposite of what she twice ruled on previously. Glass again showed that she was willing to do anything she could to help the D.A. win his case. (click on the expert witness tab to read more about this)

Prior to the Petrochelli Hearing (click on the Petrochelli Hearing tab for more details) Judge Glass had told A.D.A. Tom Carroll that a sealed case means it's like it never happened and no one is to talk about it. But at the Petrochelli Hearing Glass, again, completely changed her mind and decided that testimony about my sealed and expunged cases would be permitted at trial. Even though this was in clear violation of Nevada and Pennsylvania laws and contrary to well established case law.

NRS 48.035 states:

Evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusing of the issues or of misleading the jury.

NRS 48.045 states:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.

PA statute 35 P.S. 780-119 states:

Any expunged record shall not hereafter be regarded as such for the purpose of any statute or regulation or license or questionnaire or any civil or criminal proceeding or any other public or private purpose. No person shall be permitted to learn of any expunged case or of the expunction either directly or indirectly. Any person, except the individual arrested or prosecuted, who divulges such information in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a summary offense.

Moore vs. State

It is important to show by proof of previous bad conduct that the accused had a propensity for committing crime.

U.S. vs. Sanchez

Prosecutor's impeachment regarding defendant'sreputation improperly assumed facts not in evidence and was not harmless to defendant's right to a fair trial.

Tucker vs. State

Beforeevidence of collateral offense is admissible for any purpose, prosecution must first establish by plain, clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed that offense.

McCormick, Evidence S47 at 99(2 ed. 1972)

….facts showing misconduct of the witness for which no conviction has been had are collateral and, if denied on cross-examination, cannot be contradicted.

Judge Glass allowed testimony about my sealed and expunged cases in at trial with the clear purpose of confusing the issues, misleading the jury and prejudicing the jury against me. I was never arrested or convicted of any crime before this case.

Judge Glass would not sever the girls' accusations from the pornography charges. The law states that charges can be joined ONLY if they are of the same or similar character, are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. The video clips were NOT of any of my students, just random women from the internet. The video clips didn't have school girls or anything related to a school theme. There was no connection between the girls' accusations and the video clips. Judge Glass didn't care that they didn't meet the standard of the law and should have been separated. Here again Judge Glass willingly chose to ignore the law and help the D.A. win his case.

After my trial one of the jurors contacted Judge Glass about juror misconduct. This juror came forward a couple of weeks after my conviction, told Judge Glass that jury misconduct had taken place and said that it bothered her. This juror told Glass that several jurors had done either internet research or independent experiments. All of the jurors were brought back and questioned under oath. Four of the jurors admitted to doing either internet research or independent experiments. Eleven of the twelve jurors admitted to being part of discussions and/or arguments concerning the juror misconduct. The law only requires proof of jury misconduct for a new trial to be warranted, not whether it was or was not prejudicial. Judge Glass ruled that there WAS jury misconduct, but she felt it wasn't prejudicial to me and I would not be getting a new trial. Glass didn't want me to have a new trial because I had already been acquitted of 11 charges

The juror who reported the misconduct did so weeks after my conviction and said it was bothering her. If this juror truly believed in my conviction, she would NOT have reported the misconduct or stated that it had bothered her. She obviously felt that the jury misconduct was prejudicial to me, which is why she reported it. Judge Glass, again, showed her bias and arrogance when she assumed to know whether the jury misconduct prejudiced jurors against me.

Judge Glass showed her bias towards me before, during and after trial. She did whatever she could to help the D.A. win his case against me. I'm now headed to the Federal courts with the hope that they will rule impartially, unbiased and according to the law. Something Judge Glass willingly chose not to do.

It's apparent that judges like Glass and even the D.A.'s office have no fear of abusing the justice system as they know they'll get another chance to prosecute me when I come back on appeal. They have no fear of punishments or repercussions and there is no deterrent keeping them from violating laws or the rights of people like me. They don't sit in prison awaiting appeal and they don't have to pay an attorney for a second trial. They pervert the legal system and get a second bite at the apple with an opportunity to reprosecute me after my appeal. Burden of proof? They have no burden at all!

U.S. Vs Dintz

….Bad faith conduct by judge or prosecutor threatens the harassment of an accused by successive prosecutions so to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant.

Green vs. U.S.

….the state with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to the expense and ordeal as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may found guilty.

Arizona vs. Washington

….a second prosecution increases the financial and emotional burden on the accused, prolongs the period in which he is stigmatized by an accusation of wrongdoing, and may even enhance the risk that an innocent defendant may be convicted.

U.S. vs.Kessler

….a prosecutor would have the option of first trying his case with inadmissible, prejudicial, and irrelevant evidence-committing known error-in hopes of “getting away” with it, withthe ability to retry the case.

All of these case laws relate directly to what A.D.A Tom Carroll and Judge Jackie Glass did in my case. They weren't impartial and unbiased as they are supposed to be. They have a total disregard for the justice system and they made this clear with their actions.